(Reuters) – Communist Laos has issued a decree outlawing online criticism of policies of the ruling party or government, state media reported, the latest Southeast Asian country to enact strict internet controls.

According to legislation approved by Prime Minister Thongsing Thammavong last week, web users will face criminal action for spreading “false” information aimed at discrediting the government, the official KPL news agency said.

It added users must also use their real names when setting up social media accounts.

Internet service providers could face action for making “available conditions” for any individual or group that had intentions of “tarnishing the party and government’s guidelines and policy”, KPL said.

The decree comes as cellphone and internet usage climbs in tandem with economic growth, a reduced poverty rate and greater electricity access in the country of 6.4 million people.

The new laws bear similarities to those of its Communist neighbor Vietnam, which commands strong influence over Laos and has a near identical political system.

Vietnam announced a cyber decree last year that drew condemnation from a coalition of internet firms, among them eBay, Facebook, Google and Yahoo.

Vietnam has taken a tough stand on government critics, jailing dozens of bloggers and activists for spreading “anti-state propaganda” on the internet in what rights groups say are fear tactics aimed at discouraging dissent.

Thailand has closed hundreds of thousands of websites and jailed people who have used the internet to post critical comments about its monarchy under its 2007 Computer Crimes Act.

The Lao decree bans “disseminating or circulating untrue information for negative purposes against the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party and the Lao government, undermining peace, independence, sovereignty, unity and prosperity of the country,” according to KPL.

It also banned uploading of pornography or “inappropriate” photographs and said pseudonyms must not be used.

Punishments range from warnings to fines and unspecified criminal action.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, April 1, 2014. Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/Reuters

NATO, the U.S.-led military alliance that has protected America and western Europe from attack since the end of World War Two, is no longer fit for purpose.

The growing aggression of Russian president Vladimir Putin and his territorial ambitions, as displayed in his annexation of Crimea and his supplying pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine, has shown the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to be ill prepared.

There is even doubt whether major powers like the U.S., Britain, France and Germany would be prepared to intervene if smaller NATO nations, like the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, were invaded by Russia.

That is the stark verdict of British lawmakers, members of the Commons Select Defence Committee. In a scathing assessment of NATO’s inability to respond to emergencies such as Russia’s war against Georgia and Ukraine in Crimea, and Russia’s use of stealth methods to destabilize Ukraine, they conclude that the Atlantic alliance has been “too complacent about the threat from Russia, and it is not well prepared.” They call for the next NATO summit, to be held in Wales in September, to station more military forces in the Baltic states to deter a Russian invasion.

“NATO is currently not well prepared for a Russian threat against a NATO Member State,” the committee’s report says. “A Russian unconventional attack, using asymmetric tactics … designed to slip below NATO’s response threshold would be particularly difficult to counter. And the challenges which NATO faces in deterring, or mounting an adequate response to, such an attack poses a fundamental risk to NATO’s credibility.”

“The risk of attack by Russia on a NATO Member State, whilst still small, is significant,” said the committee’s chairman, member of parliament Rory Stewart. “We are not convinced that NATO is ready for this threat.” He warns that “the nature of Russian tactics is changing fast — including cyber-attacks, information warfare, and the backing of irregular ‘separatist groups’, combining armed civilians with Russian Special Forces operating without insignia. We have already seen how these tactics have been deployed by Russia and its proxies in Ukraine to destabilize a NATO partner state, annex part of its territory, and paralyze its ability to respond.”

Stewart warns that Russia may extend its ambitions westwards – and that NATO has no plan to counter an invasion. “The instability in Russia, President Putin’s world-view, and the failure of the West to respond actively in Ukraine means that we now have to address urgently the possibility – however small – of Russia repeating such tactics elsewhere,” Stewart says.

The Committee recommends:

• Pre-positioning military equipment in the Baltic States.

• Continuous NATO troops on training and exercises in the Baltic.

• Large-scale military exercises.

• Improvements to NATO’s rapid reaction force and the establishment of a new Standing Reserve Force.

• Improved warning procedures of imminent attack.

• New tactics to respond to the threat of “ambiguous” attacks from Russia – including how to counter threats from cyber, information warfare, and irregular militia.

• A reconsideration of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that set up NATO that requires that an armed attack on one NATO State to be treated as an attack upon them all, to allow for a response to less conventional attacks.

A MONTH ago, Russian President Vladi­mir Putin appeared to be successfully executing his campaign to destabilize Ukraine. While Russian-backed insurgents consolidated a breakaway republic, weak and divided Western governments ignored their own deadlines for imposing sanctions. Now, suddenly, Mr. Putin faces twin reversals: relatively tough sanctions from the United States and European Union on Russian banks and oil companies, and a string of military defeats that have pushed back his proxy forces. It’s a dangerous moment for Mr. Putin — and, perhaps, an opportunity for Ukraine and its allies.

The Obama administration and European governments deserve credit for agreeing on joint action against Russia after months of haggling and hesi­ta­tion. But Mr. Putin is mostly responsible for his own setbacks. Having recklessly supplied his Ukrainian proxy force with advanced anti-aircraft missiles, he was surprised when one downed a Malaysian passenger jet, causing a heavy loss of European lives. Even then he might have avoided significant sanctions, but his response to the tragedy was to stonewall and deny responsibility even while escalating his weapons deliveries to the flailing insurgents.

President Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders have bent over backward to avoid a full rupture with Mr. Putin over Ukraine. Mr. Obama said Tuesday that the sanctions did not represent “a new cold war” but rather was “a very specific issue” related to Ukraine. Yet the combination of economic losses from the sanctions and Ukraine’s potential defeat of the rebels could pose a threat to Mr. Putin’s hold on the Kremlin. Having whipped up nationalist passions over Ukraine with his state-directed propaganda apparatus, the Russian ruler might have trouble explaining the rebels’ eclipse. While the effect of sanctions will take time to sink into the economy — the Russian stock market and ruble rose Wednesday — Mr. Putin has already been on thin ice with Russia’s middle class and its private-sector businessmen.

It’s not yet clear how Mr. Putin will react to these reversals. He is capable of surprising shifts of direction — such as his sudden offer last summer to help strip his ally Syria of chemical weapons. Ukrainian officials, like some of their counterparts in the West, worry about a reckless lashing out by a ruler who feels cornered. Mr. Putin, they counsel, still should be offered a face-saving way of retreating from Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko and the interim government, which have been offering such compromises all along, are set to renew negotiations with the Russian-backed forces this week.

While such initiatives are worth trying, the reality is that Mr. Putin is more likely to escalate than back down. Ukraine and the West must be prepared for a more forceful and overt Russian military intervention. That should mean more support for the Ukrainian military, which is seeking drones and better communications equipment from the West, and more economic support for the new government, which has been forced to spend heavily on the armed forces. Russia should not be allowed to permanently entrench its proxy forces in eastern Ukraine, creating a “frozen conflict.”

The West also should not shrink from the destabilization of Mr. Putin’s regime. Once considered a partner, this Kremlin ruler has evolved into a dangerous rogue who threatens the stability and peace of Europe. If he can be undermined through sanctions and the restoration of order in eastern Ukraine, he should be.

Vientiane, Laos has one of the highest economic growth rates in the region in recent years – about eight percent — but it also has a budget shortfall. That means many state workers including doctors and nurses also haven’t been paid in months.

Amid the ongoing fiscal crisis, aid workers were concerned the government wouldn’t meet a sharply rising financial commitment to fund patchy, but improving immunization coverage. In the absence of a local commitment, there was concern international donors would cry foul, potentially threatening the country’s vaccination program.

Then on May 12, UNICEF reported that Laos had deposited the requisite $530 000, confirming the landlocked Southeast Asian state’s small commitment to the program, which totaled US$7.9 million in 2014. The government’s commitment has placated foreign donors, guaranteeing coverage for the majority of the country’s nearly seven million people.

“In light of the fiscal situation, it is encouraging that the government of Laos is continuing to commit its financial resources to high impact and life-saving interventions for children, such as immunization,” said Julia Rees, acting head of UNICEF’s Laos office, the procurer of vaccines for the country.

In at least one province, local authorities had already asked an international health nongovernmental organization to help fund immunization efforts.

Dr. Soulivanh Pholsena, director of foreign relations at the Laos Ministry of Health, did not respond to questions on the country’s vaccination program.

Laos aims to graduate from least developed country status by 2020 — the first country in the world to state such an ambition — which will mean lowering donor funding. To that aim, the government has been asked to contribute sharply rising annual payments towards routine vaccines. It started funding them in 2012 with a payment of just $22 400.

“Over time, countries take on an increasing share of vaccine costs so that — when the time is right — they are ready to assume the full costs of financing their vaccine programs,” said Rob Kelly, a spokesman of GAVI Alliance, which has disbursed US$19.3 million since 2000 as one of the biggest funders of immunization in Laos.

Although a new real-time, digital vaccine supply system that tracks cold storage and delivery to patients was introduced this year and major progress has been made recently, many people in remote areas still do not receive routine vaccinations.

Laos has increased coverage for measles from just 40% of the population in 2007 to 82% last year, according to the national statistics bureau. But in four provinces, still less than a quarter of babies at the critical age of 12 to 23 months are immunized against the disease.

While the mortality rate for under-fives has reduced much faster than expected, studies by the University of Washington this month did not include Laos on a list of countries expected to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goal for reducing child mortality.

Viorica Berdaga, head of health and nutrition at UNICEF Laos, said there was still every chance of reducing under-five deaths by two-thirds to meet MDG4 in time for next year.

“To maintain this pace the government of Laos should continue to increase its resources for the delivery of child survival interventions to those who are hardest to reach,” she said.

Are you eyeing investments in Asia, but tired of the usual “China,” “India” options? Tempted to investigate an exciting growth region somewhere south of the former and east of the latter?

The 10 countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are now moving towards economic integration. First announced more than 10 years ago, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is due to be established by 2015.

With less than a year left to the official deadline, there’s been a revival of interest in this potential unified market comprising a diverse mix of nascent frontier markets (Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar), rising economies (Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam), established markets (Thailand and Malaysia), and wealthier states (Brunei and Singapore). News media, research outfits, and even industry conferences are beginning to flirt with the theme.

Combined GDP of $2.4 trillion in 2013, making it the seventh-largest economy in the world if it were a country. Projected to be fourth largest by 2050.

Population of 600 million, ahead of North America or the European Union. Labour force is third largest in the world, behind only China and India.

Almost 60% of total growth since 1990 has been derived from productivity gains.

ASEAN’s five key members (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) together pulled in more foreign direct investments than China in 2013 ($128 billion vs $117 billion)

Those of us from the investment and financial industry may be drawn to a specific section of the AEC Blueprint focusing on capital markets. When implemented, the measures proposed will ensure that within ASEAN:

Capital can move freely across borders.

Issuers are free to raise capital anywhere.

Investors can invest anywhere.

Theoretically, investors should be able to trade capital market products freely in any ASEAN market from a single access point, while capital market intermediaries should be able to provide services throughout the region, based on home country approval.

Too good to be true? Possibly. While the plans and priorities have been approved by the respective governments, the devil is always in the details – in this instance, the speed and extent of implementation.

There is a host of initiatives and actions outlined in the AEC Blueprint, divided into four broad areas, targeted to be phased in over eight years (2008 to 2015). However, the general consensus by observers and ASEAN watchers is that a full integration will not happen by the end of 2015.

That’s not to say that progress hasn’t been made.

To monitor the AEC process, ASEAN set up an AEC Scorecard, tracking implementation in four phases (2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013, and 2014-2015). Reports for the first two phases (2008-2011) have been published.

So far, ASEAN has scored best in terms of integrating the region into the global economy (namely creating free-trade agreements, or FTAs, between ASEAN and other major economies, e.g. China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand). More than eight in 10 (85.7%) measures in this area targeted for the first two phases have been achieved.

However, when it comes to promoting a single market and production base, such as free flow of investment and freer flow of capital, only slightly under two-thirds (65.9%) of the targeted initiatives for this period (2008-2011) have been accomplished. The pace in this area has also slowed. Where almost all of the single-market initiatives in Phase 1 (93.8%) were on track, the pace had halved (49.1%) by the end of Phase 2.

What does this mean? While investors and business people should not hold their breath for full integration come 2015, they can and should expect pockets and even swathes of areas where capital, services, and goods begin to flow more freely. Those ASEAN members that are better prepared will kick-start the initiatives, with the circle widening as and when other member economies are ready to join.

This accretive approach is typical of ASEAN, going by historical precedents (not only of the AEC thus far, but also most other earlier cooperation efforts).

In the case of the AEC, a trading link allowing investors to connect to and trade on other exchanges in the region went “live” with just the Malaysia and Singapore bourses in September 2012; Thailand joined shortly after. Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines have agreed to the scheme in principle, but delayed coming on board, pending technology upgrades and other practical concerns.

Likewise, the ASEAN funds passport scheme is scheduled to go live this year with three core members: Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Known officially as the ASEAN Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Framework, it will allow fund managers operating in one market to offer CIS (typically mutual funds or unit trusts) directly to retail investors in the other two member markets. All members will adopt a set of common standards in areas such as qualifications, investment limits, and capital requirements for instance, to ensure that retail funds are managed based on industry best practices.

And even though it’s just three markets to start with, the trio’s combined assets under management (AUM) is still a sizeable chunk – $240 billion at the end of 2012 – sufficiently attractive to warrant the interest of the investment industry.

An internal projection by BNP Paribas Securities Services reckons that the AUM could reasonably grow between 33% (to $317 billion) and 70% (to $400 billion) over the next five years, depending on the impact of ASEAN passporting on funds growth.

The projection, discussed in a recent report in Asian Investor (“Exploring the Asean fund passport’s potential”), further considers a scenario with Indonesia and the Philippines joining. This could expand AUM to $470 billion in the same period.

So even with partial integration, there are still benefits to be reaped. As BNP Paribas Securities Services Senior Executive Mostapha Tahiri put it in the report: “As Malaysia and Thailand are relatively closed fund markets, the passport gives local and global players immediate benefits from cross border distribution.”

A potential stumbling block, however, could be the simple fact that outside of governments, a vast majority of the private sector remains unaware or unconvinced about the AEC and its merits, if any.

Consider this particularly telling episode at the inaugural ASEAN Economic Congress, a new conference organized earlier this year by Euromoney on the AEC.

A panelist threw out this question to the 400-plus delegates in the hall: “How many of you have seriously thought about what the AEC means to your business? Is anyone’s company preparing for how business is going to change? Has anyone received any company training about the AEC?”

Not a single hand was raised. Clearly, people were either completely oblivious to the AEC, or completely skeptical that the AEC will make any difference, the panelist observed wryly.

A more scientific assessment in 2012 had indicated as much. The ASEAN Economic Community Business Survey polled 381 firms from nine of the 10 ASEAN countries and found that more than half (55%) were unaware of the AEC 2015. In contrast, more than two-thirds of the same sample knew about the ASEAN FTA with China. In fact, a consistently higher proportion was aware of other ASEAN free-trade agreements (with India, Korea, and Australia and New Zealand) compared to the AEC.

Based on responses to a number of other questions, the report by National University of Singapore economics don Albert Hu concluded:

“… what drives the business community’s interest in AEC 2015 is the actual process of economic integration. We can infer from this that the lack of awareness of AEC 2015 in the business community can be attributed to the lack of actual economic integration.”

A 2013 Deutsche Bank report on the AEC came to a similar view. “Thus far, the public impression of AEC is that it is driven by the government sector, which needs to be corrected …. AEC success depends crucially on private-sector involvement and public support. In this regard, greater efforts should be made to raise awareness of AEC among the business community to bring it on board,” it said.

Indeed, implementation does not equal integration. The ASEAN governments can only open doors, clear trade barriers, and prepare the infrastructure. This would only be an empty frame, however, without the private sector’s buy-in and involvement.

The next step for ASEAN governments thus would be to pitch, nay evangelise, the vision. Any takers?

Disclaimer: Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

Mr Putin has not ruled out a meeting with Mr Poroshenko at a ceremony to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy on Friday.

No talks are planned between Mr Putin and Mr Obama, who will also be at the ceremony.

Meanwhile, fighting continued in eastern Ukraine, with reports of an attack on a border post in Donetsk region.

A convoy of vehicles carrying pro-Russian separatists was involved in the attack near the Marynivka checkpoint which has now been repelled by government forces, the Ukrainian border guard service said.

The attack comes a day after rebels seized a border guard base in neighbouring Luhansk region after days of combat.

‘Resolute message’

Speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Mr Cameron, Mr Obama said Russia should “seize the opportunity” provided by the change of leadership in Kiev, and be prepared to face sanctions if the situation continued to deteriorate.

“Russia needs to recognise that President-elect Poroshenko is the legitimately elected leader of Ukraine and engage the government in Kiev,” he said.

“Given its influence over the militants in Ukraine, Russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons and enter into a dialogue with the Ukrainian government.

“On the other hand, if Russia’s provocations continue, it’s clear from our discussion here that the G7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on Russia.”

Presidents Hollande is having the second of his two dinners with Mr Putin

Mr Cameron urged Mr Putin to take action to end the status quo in eastern Ukraine

G7 leaders said they were sending a “resolute message “to Russia

Earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the G7 leaders had “exchanged expectations” about Ukraine and Russia.

“On substance, there is no difference whatsoever,” she said. “There is great common ground.”

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the group was united in sending a “resolute message” to Russia, that it should “recognise and fully engage with” the new Ukrainian authorities.

He added that Russia should “take concrete and credible measures to de-escalate the situation in the east of Ukraine”.

Barroso: “This democratic club… does not accept the Russia of Vladimir Putin”

The G7 summit is the first since Russia was expelled from the group following its annexation of Crimea in March.

On Thursday, leaders also discussed the global economic outlook, climate change and development issues.